Read The Benn Diaries: 1940-1990 Online
Authors: Tony Benn
In a way it was his attractive, public-school character that made him both pleasant and detestable.
I thoroughly enjoyed it even though it made me more sympathetic to Nye Bevan than I had been at the start.
Tuesday 20 November
Should I join the Bevanites?
I am not in sympathy with the methods used by the Bevanites since the resignations in April.
Tribune
has been scurrilous and the personal bitterness engendered has been far greater than was necessary. Particularly obnoxious do I find the complacent assumptions by the Bevanites that the ark of the socialist covenant resides with them.
From a personal point of view I am anxious to settle down independently. This last year has been very frustrating and I am only just starting to venture forth on my own.
Thursday 28 February 1952 – PLP Foreign Affairs Group
Today there was another Foreign Affairs Group meeting to discuss German rearmament. It was interesting because for the first time decisions were taken. The characteristic of Party discussions all this time has been talk and
no vote. The Foreign Affairs Group was the first to do anything but of course its decisions were not binding on the Party.
The following motions were moved:
Eric Fletcher:
‘That this group is opposed to any proposals for a German contribution to Western Defence which would violate all four conditions laid down by the present Leader of the Opposition on 12 February 1951; and is of the opinion that the whole question of German rearmament should be postponed for the time being; and protests against Her Majesty’s Government’s support for the creation of what the Prime Minister has openly described as a German army.’ [Carried by 30 votes to 24.]
John Strachey:
‘That this party shall reaffirm the view that we shall not agree to German rearmament until the conditions laid down by Mr Attlee have been fulfilled. These conditions include in particular the condition that the building up of the forces in the democratic states must precede the creation of German forces and that the agreement of the Germans themselves must be obtained. That this party shall urge that the British Government shall indicate its willingness to become a member of the European Defence Community if a treaty containing suitable safeguards can be negotiated.’ [Defeated]
Denis Healey:
‘That this party believing that the defence of Western Europe can best be achieved within a closely integrated European Defence Community, but that a European Defence Community limited to the nations of continental Europe is inadequate for this purpose, maintains that the British Government should approach the Administration of the USA to propose that both countries offer to place a proportion of their armed forces inside the European Defence Community.’ [Defeated]
Emrys Hughes:
‘That this party declares its opposition to any form of German rearmament, welcomes the opposition to German rearmament recently expressed by the socialist parties of Germany and France and calls for joint consultation with our continental comrades with a view to halting armament in Europe, formulating a policy for disarmament and the reconstruction of Europe as a planned socialist economy.’ [Defeated]
Freda Corbet:
‘That this group accepts the necessity for a German contribution to Western defences with safeguards against a resurgence of German militarism as laid down by Mr Attlee in his four points on 12 February 1951.’ [Defeated]
Thursday 24 September 1953
I am satisfied that my personal position in Bristol South East is secure. This is a great relief as I must admit that over the last three years I have worried about it a great deal. I am much more relaxed at meetings – for the very first time ever in Bristol I have made jokes. I am gradually escaping from the personality created for me by circumstances as a young Cripps, earnest, sincere, humourless and churchgoing.
I spent the evening working on Gaitskell’s script for the TV broadcast on 15 October. Gaitskell realises its importance and is prepared to work hard, but he is intellectually arrogant, obstinate and patronising. I respect – but cannot quite admire – him.
Thursday 1 October – General Impressions of Conference
This year’s Conference did not want to fight. Most delegates are sick of abuse and threats and splits. Herbert Morrison’s withdrawal from the treasurership was a fine start.
The right wing of the Party won almost every vote of importance. Land nationalisation and other more extreme proposals were all defeated by big votes.
A great deal of the friction between the trade unions and the constituencies arises from differences in the feelings between ‘unpractical’ people and the unions, with their huge roles.
It was a good Conference and one senses the great labour movement as a real living organisation, warm and generous, and dedicated. We can look forward to a good year in Parliament now and victory in a General Election.
Monday 2 November
A complete session has gone by between 1952-53 virtually unrecorded.
Ever since 1950 when I was elected, the peerage has been a constant problem. Various proposals for reform have been discussed in these last three years. Lord Simon’s Bill a year ago reopened the controversy and led to a government proposal for an all-party conference. But this was rejected by a small Party meeting in the spring.
I was approached by a group of Tories due to inherit peerages who asked whether I would care to talk it over with them. It came to nothing.
The story has been the same since 1711 when the first resolution on reform was moved in the Lords.
I decided I must make an attempt and so, although he was ill and away from work, I wrote a personal letter to Churchill on 27 August in which I set out my problem simply and asked for his guidance.
On 2 September he replied in a very sympathetic way. I thanked him and dared to hope the Queen’s Speech might deal with it.
Today the Queen’s Speech was read from the throne and did contain a reference to ‘Further consideration of the question of the Reform of the House of Lords’.
Thursday 11 February 1954
At 8pm a very important meeting took place – to establish one body for colonial activity – the Movement for Colonial Freedom. It is what is badly needed at the moment for we are frittering away our energies in little tinpot groups with chronic money troubles and too great a diffusion of energy and
skill. The four groups emerging to make up the nucleus are: Congress of Peoples against Imperialism, Seretse Khama Council, British Guiana Association, the Central African Committee. We want an income of £2,000 per year, a paid secretary and typist.
Tuesday 6 April
This evening I was the guest of the Mirror Pictorial Group at the Savoy for dinner. Among those present on the Mirror side were Hugh Cudlipp, Sidney Jacobson, Philip Zec and Labour MPs Woodrow Wyatt, Ernest Davies, Jim Callaghan, Tony Greenwood, Kenneth Younger and self.
The journalists asked us what the Labour Party stood for and what we were doing and how they could help us. During the fascinating evening Jim Callaghan and Tony Greenwood emerged rather as traditionalists – ‘nationalise and be damned’. Woodrow was an excellent and strong chairman. Hugh Cudlipp was dynamic, stimulating and unbalanced. Ernest Davies was leading us towards a new foreign policy in the H-bomb age. I talked too much but hit upon a theme that I must develop: ‘Socialism is a creed that must be based on the doctrine of liberation or the release of energy.’
We discussed foreign affairs. The age of the H-bomb means a complete reassessment of East–West relations, and survival. The Cold War is dead, we must start afresh.
We agreed to meet again and see if we couldn’t hammer out a real working policy, a theme and a basis for co-operation.
Thursday 8 April
Earlier this afternoon I put a question to Churchill about whether the 1943 Quebec A-bomb agreement covered the use of the H-bomb. He said it did, and I quoted Eisenhower and Truman to say it didn’t and asked for him to withdraw the charge that Attlee had ‘gambled with the national interest’. I thought it a good point but Attlee called me over at the Party meeting and said, ‘Wouldn’t it have been wiser to have consulted me before putting your question – after all
only
I know the whole truth.’ This was stumbling into big things, so I apologised simply. I guess the truth cannot be told yet.
Saturday 23 October
To Bristol for a recording of a programme for the younger generation (15–25-year-olds). What emerged was:
All very revealing and disquieting.
June 1955 – General Election Post-mortem
Why did we lose the Election? What do we do next?
For a while I have felt very miserable. I took the defeat personally and got too deeply involved. In the last two years I have remained a little more detached. But the rot spread to the constituency Parties very rapidly. I could not help but feel that a party unable to co-exist with itself was really unfit to govern and conduct international negotiations.
Now we are defeated again. The Right will blame Bevan. The Bevanites will interpret it as the price paid for the right-wing policies and leaders.
But since 1951 the Tories have had good luck with the economic climate, people are generally better off and the end of most shortages has enabled rationing to be ended on everything but coal. There has been no unemployment. A family in a council house with a TV set and a car or motorcycle-combination on hire purchase had few reasons for a change of government. The Tories on a turnout 7 per cent lower than 1951 won a greater majority.
Bristol is still a very safe seat indeed and I needn’t get panicky but I am frightened that the thing is disintegrating through the absence of a real livewire at its head. The old days of petitions, indoor meetings, 100 per cent canvasses and the rest, are probably dead and gone for ever.
Wednesday 8 June
Invited to Dick Crossman’s cocktail party with Nye and the Bevanites plus the left of centre ‘Keep Cahners’. Harold Wilson briefed us on the current position on the leadership.
Should Nye oppose Herbert for Deputy Leader? Should Jim Griffiths be put up instead? Do we really want Herbert
or
Hugh Gaitskell? What should Nye do about the Shadow Cabinet?
I found the atmosphere very depressing. The hatred for Morrison and Gaitskell is if anything stronger than their hatred for Nye. In the end it was agreed (almost) that Nye would not oppose Herbert but would stand for the Shadow Cabinet and that we should all plead with Clem to remain indefinitely. Pa advised me to steer clear of intrigues. They all sicken me.
Roy Jenkins cares desperately about getting rid of Morrison for the deputy leadership – to pave the way for Gaitskell.
Sunday 28 October 1956
To Newport last night for a conference. Harold Finch, the Member for Bedwelty, met me and took me to his home, then into the miners’ welfare institute where there was a crowded room of serious-minded people. I spoke
for an hour about the challenge of coexistence. It was a wonderful audience to address and the questions were good and pointed. One old boy in a quavering voice asked, ‘Can Mr Wedgwood Benn tell us what value he thinks the hydrogen bomb has as a detergent?’ I sat listening to the miners talking of the bad old days – the soup kitchens, the struggles with the police, the terrible hunt for work and the agony and humiliation of destitution. It was very moving and more than history – for in the crowded smokey club room were many men gasping for breath from silicosis or limping about from some industrial injury.
Today’s news is mainly of the Hungarian crisis reaching its climax. The spontaneous rebellion against the Communist Government has virtually succeeded. The Iron Curtain has risen and people are moving freely in and out of Hungary with supplies and relief. Mr Nagy, the Prime Minister, broadcasts further concessions every hour and the red, white and green have reappeared to replace the hated scarlet banner of the Communist Government. Everyone in the world is breathless with hope that this may lead to a rebirth of freedom throughout the whole of Eastern Europe.
Monday 29 October
The news came through this morning that Britain has raised the matter of Hungary at the UN. I decided to try to raise this as a matter of urgent public importance and get a debate on the adjournment of the House. I worked all morning (and most of last night) on this and phoned Gaitskell to ask him to take it up officially on behalf of the Front Bench. He asked me to come and see him immediately after lunch and I found that he had summoned a meeting of those members of the Party most concerned with foreign affairs. They all feared that a debate might lead to the expression of damaging opinions from left and right extremists which again might harm our capacity to help. I greatly resented all this but on reflection they may well have been right. The Foreign Secretary made a statement and I had acquired for Gaitskell the full text of the Ambassador to the UN, Sir Pierson Dixon’s speech which he used most effectively from the Front Bench. I asked whether the Foreign Secretary would make provision for the British people to send blood, relief and money to show their solidarity, without provoking the Soviet Union into a new policy of repression. This last phrase was almost drowned by Conservative boos.
Tuesday 30 October
I heard on the news bulletin this morning of the Israeli attack on Egypt. The weekend news had been grave from the Middle East but I don’t think anybody except those in the know had expected it to explode so rapidly and so seriously. I went to the House of Commons after lunch and heard the Prime Minister’s statement announcing the ultimatum to Egypt and the decision to demand the right to occupy the Suez Canal. Rumours of this had
been reaching us for a few hours and for a moment the Party was in a state of some uncertainty. Here was aggression and it had to be stopped. Yet we knew the real motives of government policy – how could we say what we felt in a clear way?